What exactly makes someone a TERF?

[YmirGF]

You are familiar with a lesbian dating app? Ever used it?

Ah, the cool glow of gaslighting. Mmmmmm.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Ah, the cool glow of gaslighting. Mmmmmm.

It may appear that way, but it's actually relevant to the discussion... either you have an insider perspective of the app or an outsider perspective (which is generally more prone to error).

I was just trying to determine whether you ever used the app, was a moderator on it, etc, where you have an insider perspective to actually back up your statements.

 

[icehorse]

Discussing a person's character can involve subjective judgments and opinions, which can make it challenging to prove or disprove.

I hope you know I was being facetious.

To be clear, I'm not the one saying we should punch a TERF. I'm commenting on those do say that.

Character-related claims may at times fall into the category of unfalsifiable claims, or at least nearly so. Especially if we don't (yet) have all information on a subject yet.

Maybe there are different definitions? When I hear or use the word "unfalsifiable" it does not mean it has not been proven, it means it cannot be proven. I would say that we could determine a person's character, even if we don't know it yet.

This is a really complex thing to debate. For example, which trans activists? All trans activists? Some trans activists? And how do we prove that when they say "TERF", they are using it in that way?

Complex indeed, but I'd say important.

I think it's safe to conclude that anyone who labels another person a TERF, is using it as a strong insult. I think it's a mistake to pretend otherwise. Some statements are insults.

 

[YmirGF]

I didn't see anything in that article that said that it was transphobic to not want to date trans people, or that people in a sizeable scale in the broader public thought so. All the article talked about was that the website affirmed it's support with trans people in the face of backlash from a small amount of TERFs who used the website. Maybe you could point out that part to me if I missed it?

Please, forgive me, I may have given the impression that this was a BIG thing. It's not. But, it is happening. I became aware of the issue through some lesbian friends. They recommended I lookup a person called (MAJOR TRIGGER WARNING) Arielle scarcella and I did.

For your edification: Meet Marcus with Arielle discussing this issue.

I thought this was a pretty good discussion. No doubt it is so very very wrong.....

Where's the "mass delusion?"

I'm referring to transgender ideology (in general) here.

I feel like you are making baseless assertions.

I do understand that.

I'd like to see stats to back that claim, as I can't see that actually reflected in any meaningful way in real day to day life.

You are welcome to explore this if you like.

How much of the public do you think views it as anti trans to just not be into dating trans people?

I have no idea. My guess is that only a very small fraction of straight or gay people who would ever seriously consider having a romantic/sexual relationship with a trans person. The prospects of trans people is a seriously small pool for what should be fairly obvious reasons.

Like I said, everyone has preferences. That's fine, and most folks I've known in the real world recognize that fact

I do agree on the preferences aspect too, but do feel sorry for the trans folks who have been sold a bill of goods.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Maybe there are different definitions? When I hear or use the word "unfalsifiable" it does not mean it has not been proven, it means it cannot be proven. I would say that we could determine a person's character, even if we don't know it yet.

Maybe, but I have a pretty high standard of proof, there. It's pointless to take limited evidence, then say that a person is X or Y, or might be X or Y. Surely there must be some standard.

That being said, I'm aware of this:

I hope you know I was being facetious.

To be clear, I'm not the one saying we should punch a TERF. I'm commenting on those do say that.

But besides when it comes to TERFs, I'm just making the point that, when it comes to trans people and TERFs both, perhaps there should be some standard for not hurling fairly unevidenced accusations.

But I do realize that, in myself saying that, it also creates a burden on those calling people TERFs to illustrate their points and accusations too. Which I'd actually be okay with.

I think it's safe to conclude that anyone who labels another person a TERF, is using it as a strong insult. I think it's a mistake to pretend otherwise. Some statements are insults.

Depends. People are complex. And there's also a new generation of people now which "may", to some, come off as even more complex, maybe. Maybe if they knew how insulting some considered it, they would cut back on it a bit.

 

[YmirGF]

It may appear that way, but it's actually relevant to the discussion... either you have an insider perspective of the app or an outsider perspective (which is generally more prone to error).

I was just trying to determine whether you ever used the app, was a moderator on it, etc, where you have an insider perspective to actually back up your statements.

Your sense of relevancy is apparently not the same as my own. Have a pleasant day.

Edit: That was a bit rude and I am sorry. However, I just saw this and thought it might answer some of your questions. I view Brad Polumbo as a pretty level-headed person. Other's mileage may vary.

 

[SomeRandom]

I know TERF means trans exclusionary radical feminist.

But what exactly does a person have to believe to ACCURATELY be labeled a TERF?

Office Max is printing "Punch a TERF" materials? Those TERFs must be some awful people ??

Office Max/Office Depot Prints 'PUNCH A TERF' Cards at Eight Locations and Counting

Uhhh, JK Rowling???
Lol

A TERF is probably one of those nebulous terms that changes depending on who you ask.

I guess a feminist who hates trans people would be a rather general apt description?

Rowling is actually one of the few creators that I can’t bring myself to buy from anymore. Not that I think it actually matters in the long run. I’m a sad realist lol
But I was there to have to nurse all these emotional wounds of the fandom when it was revealed she disliked trans women. All these kids who thought they had found a safe space, who defended her against the very people that now shelter her. I dunno, it was just too saddening to participate with, fully. If I’m honest.
I mean I’d purchase from Whedon sooner than Rowling (and I condemn him don’t get me wrong.)
And she’s kind of what I think of first when someone says the term TERF. Maybe that’s not entirely fair but that’s what her marketing team has embraced so

 

[icehorse]

Uhhh, JK Rowling???

Yup, famously labeled a TERF. But why??

Here's an article that attempts to explain why Rowling got that title. First question, do you think this fairly represents the things she said that got her in trouble?

A breakdown of the J.K Rowling transgender comments

 

[icehorse]

I think you're asking the wrong crowd. As far as I can tell, RF has anti-trans people, trans people, and people who think trans people exist and shouldn't be persecuted. I haven't seen any "trans activists". But you had to have your weekly anti-trans thread, so whatever.

(And @SomeRandom )

Sigh.

I'm not anti-trans. full stop.

But I AM opposed to extreme trans activists. These activists make claims like:

- Humans can change biological sex.
- Men can get pregnant.
- Some women have penises.
- Male rapists can be housed in women's prisons depending on how they identify.
- Males can use females restrooms and locker rooms depending on how they identify.
- Males can compete in women's sports depending on how they identify.
- Using the term "women" is anti-trans, we should call them "people who menstruate".
- Sex is not real.

And so on.

These are extraordinary claims. JKR got in trouble for disagreeing with them. Did you skim through the article? It would appear that if you disagree with any of the claims listed above, you're a trans-hating TERF. Wow!

Do you think most trans people agree? I do not. I think most are reasonable people who want to live their lives in peace. Hooray.

But the trans activists are attempting to warp society in very, very unhealthy ways.

 

[wellwisher]

I know TERF means trans exclusionary radical feminist.

But what exactly does a person have to believe to ACCURATELY be labeled a TERF?

Office Max is printing "Punch a TERF" materials? Those TERFs must be some awful people ??

Office Max/Office Depot Prints 'PUNCH A TERF' Cards at Eight Locations and Counting

Based on what everyone has said about feminists and transgender, if you look closer, both groups used or are using the same Liberal tactics to get their way. There is now a TERF war, since there are places where by using the same playbook, both are trying to bully each other into acceptance, in the same Liberal style.

When feminism first started, males were labeled cavemen with toxic masculinity. It was the good ole boys network who objectified women. This was not called a phobia, even though such one size fits all statements of paranoia are ludicrous. Two faced and dual justice are part of the tactic, so that phobia was not a phobia. However, the Men were required conform to the feminist idea of a man, or you were phobic and a hater. All male-male traditions had to be broken and made open to women.

Transgender is using the same tactic on the feminists, such as men dressed as women, having to being blindly accepted in women sports, even if they dominate women's sports. If you do not go along and let us bully you, you are a hater. This is undermining something that took a lot of effort for feminists to establish for women. They know the game and are using it as their defense.

That Liberal dual standard tactic was not designed to be used by Liberal Groups against each other. The greed of the Medical community and Democrat leaders created an unintended turf war. Liberalism may be imploding due to over extending one of its key manipulation games. It was one thing to use it to zing the Right, men, white or religion, but the Left is now in its own cross fire. TERF Wars of 2022.

 

[Orbit]

Based on what everyone has said about feminists and transgender, if you look closer, both groups used or are using the same Liberal tactics to get their way. There is now a TERF war, since there are places where by using the same playbook, both are trying to bully each other into acceptance, in the same Liberal style.

When feminism first started, males were labeled cavemen with toxic masculinity. It was the good ole boys network who objectified women. This was not called a phobia, even though such one size fits all statements of paranoia are ludicrous. Two faced and dual justice are part of the tactic, so that phobia was not a phobia. However, the Men were required conform to the feminist idea of a man, or you were phobic and a hater. All male-male traditions had to be broken and made open to women.

Transgender is using the same tactic on the feminists, such as men dressed as women, having to being blindly accepted in women sports, even if they dominate women's sports. If you do not go along and let us bully you, you are a hater. This is undermining something that took a lot of effort for feminists to establish for women. They know the game and are using it as their defense.

That Liberal dual standard tactic was not designed to be used by Liberal Groups against each other. The greed of the Medical community and Democrat leaders created an unintended turf war. Liberalism may be imploding due to over extending one of its key manipulation games. It was one thing to use it to zing the Right, men, white or religion, but the Left is now in its own cross fire. TERF Wars of 2022.

What a load of nonsense. I don't even have the energy to take this apart.

 

[SomeRandom]

(And @SomeRandom )

Sigh.

I'm not anti-trans. full stop.

I think you genuinely don’t want to be and that’s great.
But you are seemingly repeating a lot of known anti trans rhetoric.

But I AM opposed to extreme trans activists. These activists make claims like:

- Humans can change biological sex.
- Men can get pregnant.
- Some women have penises.
- Male rapists can be housed in women's prisons depending on how they identify.
- Males can use females restrooms and locker rooms depending on how they identify.
- Males can compete in women's sports depending on how they identify.
- Using the term "women" is anti-trans, we should call them "people who menstruate".
- Sex is not real.

See this looks like a strawman. I’m not saying that these views aren’t espoused by a very extreme subsection of the community. All communities have their…umm well extremes.
But I’m in a lot (like a hell of a lot) of trans spaces right now and the only time I see a lot of what you’ve described is when someone laments that the right uses this misunderstanding of their arguments to argue against real trans understanding or equality
(Not saying you are, just that that’s the broader overall context, I’ve seen.)

So let us see them one by one.
-Humans change Biological sex
Given that the very first thing every single trans person and trans ally has had to repeat ad nauseam is the difference between sex and gender, I find this may be a strawman. One that is repeated by right wing figures (at least I think they’re right wing. I’m not American so it’s sometimes hard for me to differentiate. Sorry.)
Though this has perhaps become a coping mechanism to claim this jokingly. I could see that happening. But I have a warped sense of humour, so

-Men can get pregnant
Trans-men can get pregnant, emphasis on the trans part. See if they have some of the equipment still left, it can still function. You know?
This is a known phenomenon. Since trans surgery might not always be done to 100% completion, if you catch my drift? And that might be for all sorts of reasons, but I suspect financial reasons are probably at the forefront. US healthcare and all that, yeah?

Fun fact, there’s a rare intersex condition called Swyer Syndrome, whereby a person is born with a Y chromosome but externally female and mostly internally female. With some egg donation, such individuals can also get pregnant. It’s not medically recommended, but eh, people are free to do what they want, I guess.
Biology isn’t exactly black and white, even ignoring medical interference.

-Some women have penises
I suspect this is in reference to some trans (again emphasis on the trans part) women still having penises. If surgery is not fully completed at the given time.
Such individuals are likely looking to resolve that with surgery that hopefully they can get and/or afford. That might not always be the case though. Again, US healthcare isn’t exactly known to be affordable or easy to obtain. Sorry.
Hell it’s hard to get trans surgery in my country and we have Universal Healthcare!
Then of course you have all sorts of intersex conditions, which may slightly complicate matters when referring to certain individuals who otherwise present as female, but were in fact born with some male sex characteristics. A known biological phenomenon. They call it intersex or pseudohermaphroditism. But it would be a bit weird to call someone intersex in everyday life. I mean, how would you even know, you know? So we typically stick with our two categories of woman and man, just for simplicity sake.

-Male rapists can be housed in women’s prisons, depending on how they identify.
In reference no doubt to trans women?
This is perhaps a bit above my pay grade, as I’m not entirely sure of all the nuances in this one. I’m inclined to give such individuals their own spaces. But I will admit that I lose some of my empathy in cases such as this.
I leave this one to someone a bit more knowledgeable.

- Males can use the female’s RestRooms and lockers depending on how they identify.
You know there are unisex bathrooms and lockers already in use and no one has cared.
Until now, I guess.
I’m reminded of a story I just saw online recently.
A woman was at the cinemas with her non verbal autistic son (15.)
He had to use the bathroom but is unable to without her assistance. So she brought him with her into the women’s restroom. According to her, the other females in there had no issue with this as they could immediately see why this was occurring. One even smiled at her, apparently.
And speaking as a female, yeah I’ve seen this happen on occasion where I live. Hell I’ve been asked to keep an eye on a toddler inside the women’s, whilst the mother uses a stall. Hey, no parent wants to leave their kid unattended whilst they use a public restroom, after all.
Though we have “parents rooms” in some places here now, due to this phenomenon (it’s usually a unisex facility. Not always but it often is.)
Anyway, allegedly the owner of the cinema verbally abused them both and accused her of grooming.
Apparently in relation to the son being mistaken as trans, by said owner. (The son is cis.)
They were kicked out, when police were called on them and since the establishment is private property, well, they had no choice.
I think she’s now suing said establishment for violating an anti discrimination law against disabled people.
I’ll see if I can find the story.

My point being is, this isn’t a black and white thing.
And this anti trans panic is now affecting cis people as well. Which was predictable, but still.
Is this really worth it? Caring so much about who is in the next stall to you?

-Males can compete in women's sports depending on how they identify.
Trans males. Trans males.
I know shorthand can confuse matters but English speakers can be a bit lazy in regards to their usage.
This again might be above my pay grade as sports science isn’t my forte.
If an individual goes through all the surgeries and hormones and whatever, then fine. I don’t really care at the end of the day, to be honest.

- Using the term "women" is anti-trans, we should call them "people who menstruate".
This I know is a strawman, because I’ve seen it discussed and openly debated many many many times. Like omg! It’s practically reruns lol

Trans men can indeed menstruate. Again full surgery is needed to stop that and access to that might not always be easy.
Again even with Universal Healthcare, it’s not always the easiest
Also are women not people?

The English language is very intense and highly specific to reality. I’m not shocked that as we broaden our knowledge of the nuances of the experiences of folks, cis, trans and indeed intersex, our language would change to reflect this. Welcome to the evolution of language


- Sex is not real.
This I haven’t seen, except for some inside jokes among the communities. Is it a gender non binary thing?

 

[icehorse]

But you are seemingly repeating a lot of known anti trans rhetoric.

See this looks like a strawman. I’m not saying that these views aren’t espoused by a very extreme subsection of the community. All communities have their…umm well extremes.
But I’m in a lot (like a hell of a lot) of trans spaces right now and the only time I see a lot of what you’ve described is when someone laments that the right uses this misunderstanding of their arguments to argue against real trans understanding or equality
(Not saying you are, just that that’s the broader overall context, I’ve seen.)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

So, zooming way, way out, here's what I think is happening:

- There is a loud, aggressive, detrimental (I think), extremist, activist community within the trans community.
- They make the sorts of claims I listed earlier.
- Indeed, the right-wing and/or anti-trans community attacks these claims.

This results in situations like people "canceling" and boycotting people like JKR. I don't know if you took the time to read thru (or just skim, looking for her quotes), the article I linked to on JKR? As I read the article, she's in trouble with the trans community for speaking out against exactly the aggressive claims I listed above (or some close approximation).

Now I don't believe most trans people make these sorts of loud, aggressive claims, so I can understand why you'd think it looks like a strawman. But the extremists do. And they are shifting the Overton window. And they grab the headlines. And their public detractors win the hearts and minds of people who are not well versed on the topic.

Please keep in mind, for someone who is not well versed, the claims I listed ARE EXTRAORDINARY ! These claims stir the pot.

==

-Men can get pregnant
Trans-men can get pregnant, emphasis on the trans part

As I'd guess you've seen recently here on RF, there is a raging debate in the world concerning these two claims:

1 - a transwoman is a woman
2 - a transman is a man

We've seen endless debates over these two claims, correct? IMO, claims like this (and others in the list we're discussing), are quite consequential. This is not merely a question of some semantics. If claims like this become accepted, they will further weaken the women's rights that feminists have worked so hard to achieve. (You might recall, I have a wife and two daughters. I'm EXTREMELY concerned about women's rights being lost. like we've seen recently with Roe v. Wade )

I think it's a mistake to think that claims like the list above will do no harm to women, and further protect trans people. I agree that trans people need protection!!!!!! But I do not think it's necessary to rob all women of some of their rights and safeties to protect the trans. It does NOT need to be a zero sum game, but that's how it's often playing out

- Males can use the female’s RestRooms and lockers depending on how they identify.
You know there are unisex bathrooms and lockers already in use and no one has cared.
Until now, I guess.
I’m reminded of a story I just saw online recently.
A woman was at the cinemas with her non verbal autistic son (15.)
He had to use the bathroom but is unable to without her assistance. So she brought him with her into the women’s restroom. According to her, the other females in there had no issue with this as they could immediately see why this was occurring. One even smiled at her, apparently.
And speaking as a female, yeah I’ve seen this happen on occasion where I live. Hell I’ve been asked to keep an eye on a toddler inside the women’s, whilst the mother uses a stall.

I've been asking the women I know about this topic. Admittedly I have a small sample set, but here are three common responses:

1 - They are not worried about trans-women using their restrooms. (This surprised me a bit.)
2 - They would be concerned if they were in a restroom and a couple of mean looking biker dudes came in. (This is the idea of NORMALIZATION I've been discussing.)
3 - They are ALL concerned about trans-women using women's locker rooms.

As for kids, I agree with what you said, but kids do not pose much of a risk, correct?

The English language is very intense and highly specific to reality. I’m not shocked that as we broaden our knowledge of the nuances of the experiences of folks, cis, trans and indeed intersex, our language would change to reflect this. Welcome to the evolution of language

I completely agree that language does, and should evolve.

But when language is forced to evolve "or else", that starts to resemble a decline into authoritarianism. Again, please skim the article. If it fairly respresents what JKR has said, then the idea that she is being so strongly attacked is quite worrisome.

 

[SomeRandom]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

No worries, I think being thoughtful is probably better in the long run than simply reacting. But maybe I’m just weird lol

Apologies for the length of this one though

- There is a loud, aggressive, detrimental (I think), extremist, activist community within the trans community.
- They make the sorts of claims I listed earlier.
- Indeed, the right-wing and/or anti-trans community attacks these claims.

Fair assessment.

This results in situations like people "canceling" and boycotting people like JKR. I don't know if you took the time to read thru (or just skim, looking for her quotes), the article I linked to on JKR? As I read the article, she's in trouble with the trans community for speaking out against exactly the aggressive claims I listed above (or some close approximation).

Ehh, kind of??
There were a few things happening.
See the fandom (and I’m in that fandom) fairly quickly forgave her initially when she made the so called “TERF like comments.”
Forgive me, but I can’t remember exactly what she said, it’s been a few years. I do remember a sense of betrayal and hurt felt in the fandom though.
And indeed the cast of the movies publicly denounced her, likely for PR purposes. But still.
Then she started to cosy up to these, I guess, right wing figures that the fandom had initially defended her against. Indeed many who associate with her now denounced Harry Potter as “evil” originally.
Which caused all sorts of confusion and hurt and another feeling of betrayal in the fandom. Resulting in a massive boycott. Or as it’s called these days, a “cancelling.”
Then you had concern trolls
Then you had people in the trans community take offence. I feel it’s not my place to speak on their behalf on such matters (regardless of which community it is.) So hopefully someone from that community can elaborate further. Though I’ll see if I can find specific trans responses.
Then you had the feminist backlash.
See so called TERFs are more strongly associated with Second Wave and is seen as a position for the “boomers.” For lack of a better term. Old fashioned in other words. And we didn’t want that, we should be going forwards, so was the reasoning.
The Third Wave (maybe Fourth Wave in other countries, I’m not entirely sure) wanted to advance the movement and so pushed hard for trans inclusion in those spaces. Reasoning that we should be fighting for equality for all people who identify as female as well, otherwise it would be hypocritical and too old fashioned.
This was done on the back of the then growing acceptance of the gay community, so there was something of a fusion between the movements. At least certain elements, anyway.
Whilst I’m sure many were reasonable in their criticisms of Rowling, you likely witnessed quite a few very harsh condemnations from the Third Wave. Ngl, those spaces can be rather cutthroat.

Now I don't believe most trans people make these sorts of loud, aggressive claims, so I can understand why you'd think it looks like a strawman. But the extremists do. And they are shifting the Overton window. And they grab the headlines. And their public detractors win the hearts and minds of people who are not well versed on the topic.

Please keep in mind, for someone who is not well versed, the claims I listed ARE EXTRAORDINARY ! These claims stir the pot.

I mean, fair enough and I get the desire to combat those arguments specifically. Due to those outcomes.
But see, I tend to ignore those arguments. They are just easy fodder and like you said, make it easy for folks to get public opinion turned against the trans community. I realise that seems rather dishonest. But in all honesty, these arguments are likely from what’s called “concern trolls” regular trolls and honestly maybe trans folks themselves possibly just venting and meming. Hence I do not consider them worthwhile.

By all means point out their ridiculousness, out in the real world. But also be sure to include pro trans arguments to counterbalance them. Because otherwise, the anti rhetoric has already won. Right?
Even if you need some pointers from folks as to what those arguments even are. That’s understandable.


Okay our replies have word limits, at least on my phone lol
So I’ll continue in the next post. Sorry

 

[SomeRandom]

As I'd guess you've seen recently here on RF, there is a raging debate in the world concerning these two claims:

1 - a transwoman is a woman
2 - a transman is a man

We've seen endless debates over these two claims, correct? IMO, claims like this (and others in the list we're discussing), are quite consequential. This is not merely a question of some semantics. If claims like this become accepted, they will further weaken the women's rights that feminists have worked so hard to achieve. (You might recall, I have a wife and two daughters. I'm EXTREMELY concerned about women's rights being lost. like we've seen recently with Roe v. Wade )

I don’t know if it’s really an either or scenario, like you’re hinting at. Nor do I feel one bit threatened as a born cis woman to acknowledge trans women as just “normal women.” But that’s just me.

All I see are people bringing up concerns, but that’s just fear at the “new normal” and honestly that happens with all our “updates” on human beings. If you follow?
Folks in power who prefer the status quo remaining forever still will dive upon quite literally thin air to stop it from moving. So you’re kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t, really.
I think it’s better and more defiant if we do what the hell we want and fight against the status quo halters when they inevitably complain about our actions, if you get me?

I mean like everything that changes with our ever growing expansion of overall knowledge of human beings, our behaviours, our experiences, our existences etc, there will always be growing pains. Always. Blame the fear of an unknown future I guess?
Which to be fair, is a basic instinctual fear, I suppose.

By the way, I commend your concern for women’s rights and share your negative feelings about losing R v W. It should have been built or at least further established on something more concrete very soon after that victory. Dare I say, people became too complacent? But I don’t know how US law works, so perhaps that’s harsh of me to say.

Including trans women into that discussion does indeed complicate matters in many ways. But this is the reality in which we find ourselves. We need to be able to evolve in order to keep up and the nuances of that will inevitably be needed to be argued out. If we don’t, those rights will be lost either way. Because instead of banding together and finding common ground and sharing nuanced discussion, we turn against each other. Which, by the way, is exactly what the aforementioned “status quo stoppers” want. Because united we stand, divided we fall, and all that, right?

I've been asking the women I know about this topic. Admittedly I have a small sample set, but here are three common responses:

1 - They are not worried about trans-women using their restrooms. (This surprised me a bit.)
2 - They would be concerned if they were in a restroom and a couple of mean looking biker dudes came in. (This is the idea of NORMALIZATION I've been discussing.)
3 - They are ALL concerned about trans-women using women's locker rooms.

As for kids, I agree with what you said, but kids do not pose much of a risk, correct?

Well for number 1, I would hazard a guess that because women, err, might experience more “emergencies” than men on average (women’s emergency!) they may be less inclined to care about who’s in their bathroom with them. Since they’re probably more used to racing in and out and as a result probably ended up in the wrong one a lot over the years. Not to mention the “social aspect.” Since women are often inclined to go as a group, I would not be surprised if many women had that one guy friend who could accompany them without them really worrying too much. I know my friends had. We were honestly surprised he was straight lol

Also in women’s there’s all individual stalls with closable lockable doors, so I doubt women are overly concerned with privacy in comparison, given it’s given to them in abundance. At least compared to men’s who also have open urinals.
(Although apparently, this is more so the case outside of the US. Did you know that apparently your bathroom stall walls are actually a lot higher off the ground than in other countries? Like the gap underneath is a lot smaller in other Western countries in comparison. I had no idea, but I saw it in a video comparing the countries. Weird, huh?)

2- I’ve seen biker chicks. They’d be chased out of the women’s restrooms now, if I’m honest lol
But I do get the concern. Normalisation of masculine features in women’s spaces, right?
Here’s the thing though. That’s probably more connected to what’s known collectively as “non binary.”
See a trans woman would want to appear as socially feminine as humanly possible. A trans woman is going out of their way to adhere to the social standards that have been decreed as feminine, because that’s how they identify as. They would be beyond insecure and upset if they looked like a big burly biker guy.
So I wouldn’t really put that being allowed in women’s restrooms (big biker guys) on trans acceptance, if I’m honest. Since it’s quite literally antithetical to their overall goal (trans woman, specifically.)
Indeed by forcing trans individuals to go to the bathroom of their birth sex, this would actually force big burly bearded looking men to use the women’s, since that’s what a lot of passing trans males literally look like. Given that they are going out of their way to adhere to socially accepted masculine traits.
The ultimate irony, if you think about it. By not being accepting of trans individuals, you literally make those concerns come true by default.

Now the conversation differs when it comes to the aforementioned non binary crowd. Basically any non adherence to social norms regarding masculine or feminity. Deliberate or otherwise (well maybe “deliberate” isn’t the right word. as it’s also seen as an identity. But I guess choice for non conformity can also exist I suppose.)
That is a whole other kettle of fish and mostly seperate from the trans crowd (though they hang out in their spaces and there perhaps is some overlap among the more “relaxed areas” of both their communities. At least that’s what I have gathered. Again, I don’t mean to speak on anyone else’s behalf. I’m just trying my best to put forth the arguments as best I can.)
And I think the acceptance of such individuals might actually eventually fulfil the fears these women have espoused. And it pains me to say that, because like I said, I hang out in a lot of trans communities and this inevitably includes the non binary folks. I dare say I feel more comfortable among such crowds. That could be because I literally had to constantly jump between two cultural standards of femininity growing up, though. Idk.
I would very much like to see greater society tolerate them and treat them with respect as well. Maybe that will happen one day. Hopefully
But it will certainly be an interesting journey getting there. That’s my prediction lol

3- This might be more of an American thing. Not saying it actually is, just that it wouldn’t surprise me if that were the case overall.
I mean you guys often have locker rooms in your high schools, correct?
We actually don’t have any in any of our schools, well, maybe some Unis (colleges) that emphasise sport (although weirdly our private schools might have them.) Which no doubt would add to a climate of self anxiety and body issues at the forefront.
I mean teens aren’t always the most self secure, after all. And that’s fine, that’s just adolescence. I’m just saying it could be a contributing factor in the long run.

Our locker rooms are usually at the gyms, sports fields or sometimes at what we call “lagoons” (public pools basically.)
Now the gym, that’s a specific crowd with their own ideas. I don’t know how socially acceptable it is among that crowd for unisex locker rooms. I think there are some gyms near me that have them, but I’m a lazy unhealthy slob so I don’t know lol
At my local lagoons, though? That seems less of a concern, overall. I don’t know, maybe it’s the overall chill atmosphere, or the fact that you’re already spending the day with half naked men and women in the pools anyway. (Plus we also have showers that you can use out in the open to “rinse yourself off.” Not even kidding.)
So unisex locker rooms are perhaps more seen on the “meh” side. Not sure though. That’s just the vibe I’ve always gotten.

And yeah, kids are probably given a lot more leeway by women because they’re just kids lol

I completely agree that language does, and should evolve.

But when language is forced to evolve "or else", that starts to resemble a decline into authoritarianism. Again, please skim the article. If it fairly respresents what JKR has said, then the idea that she is being so strongly attacked is quite worrisome.

Hmm, I did. I might have to come back to this. I don’t agree with the attacks against her, obviously

But this overall probably runs a lot deeper than just her “being anti Trans” (allegedly) and somewhat ironically a lot more simple than authoritarianism.
Two words
Internet culture. Here’s another word. Misogyny.
I’ve seen it happen to many a female content creator, trans, cis, in between, doesn’t matter. The internet is a depraved place and honestly the comments that got them attacked ranges from the absolute benign to the bizarre.

It’s kind of hard to explain because there’s like several thousand things happening and though it’s often presented as one crowd or another doing these attacks for insert reason here. It’s sometimes more complicated and sometimes just unfortunate. And the reason behind it isn’t always the one presented in such articles, if you follow?

 

[icehorse]

Whilst I’m sure many were reasonable in their criticisms of Rowling, you likely witnessed quite a few very harsh condemnations from the Third Wave. Ngl, those spaces can be rather cutthroat.

Everything up until this point - the historical time line - seems ok to me. I might have a few quibbles, but for this discussion, I think we're close enough.

Hence I do not consider them worthwhile.

By all means point out their ridiculousness, out in the real world. But also be sure to include pro trans arguments to counterbalance them. Because otherwise, the anti rhetoric has already won. Right?
Even if you need some pointers from folks as to what those arguments even are. That’s understandable.

The short answer is, that's not the critic's job. But let me expand on that:

In the last month or two I've used RF as a sort of laboratory. To be clear, despite what my opponents here have claimed, my intention has been to be honest and sincere in my criticisms and in dealing with the apologists for trans activism. By no means am I claiming to have been anywhere near perfect. With that said, I've come to a couple of conclusions about the debates and discussions concerning trans people:

1 - Almost all of the apologists (perhaps except you?), conflate trans people with trans activists. They see criticism of trans activists as being transphobic or some such. This conflation is quite common, it's illogical, and in the end I believe it hurts trans people.

2 - Apologists overwhelmingly have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to any criticism of trans activism. I have been slurred and bullied on this forum countless times in the last few months. In general, it seems to me that - on any topic - when the apologist devolves into slurs and bullying, it's an indication that they have weak arguments.

3 - There is a sort of (I suspect unintentional), jiu-jitsu happening in these discussions. The apologists are attempting to hide the fact that THEY are the ones making extraordinary claims, and so they try to shift the burden of proof to the critics. But this is NOT how science works, it's not how debate works, it's not how useful conversation works. E.g., if you're apologizing for the claim "a trans woman is a woman", YOU are defending an extraordinary claim. You are on the hook to provide extraordinarily good arguments and evidence. If there are ANY flaws in your argument, your claim is invalid. So, for example, we see apologists pointing out that biological classification systems are not 100% perfect. That in fact there are rare cases in which individuals can be exceptions to classification systems. So what? No laws are perfect. Society does its best to create laws and policies that work most of the time for most of the people. Finding exceptions seldom means policies and laws are upended. It might mean that they get tweaked a bit.

So in general, it's not the critic's job to provide better solutions. When a scientist proposes a new idea, the role of the critic is to poke holes in the idea. That's all. The critic is not on the hook to come up with a better idea.

With that said, over the last couple of months I've made some suggestions as to better approaches, and not surprisingly I've been met with crickets. No response.

In another post I'll move on to your second set of responses.

But I'd like to reiterate that I'm finding this conversation quite refreshing. You're helping to restore my faith in humanity, thank you.

 

[Callisto]

Everything up until this point - the historical time line - seems ok to me. I might have a few quibbles, but for this discussion, I think we're close enough.



The short answer is, that's not the critic's job. But let me expand on that:

In the last month or two I've used RF as a sort of laboratory. To be clear, despite what my opponents here have claimed, my intention has been to be honest and sincere in my criticisms and in dealing with the apologists for trans activism. By no means am I claiming to have been anywhere near perfect. With that said, I've come to a couple of conclusions about the debates and discussions concerning trans people:

1 - Almost all of the apologists (perhaps except you?), conflate trans people with trans activists. They see criticism of trans activists as being transphobic or some such. This conflation is quite common, it's illogical, and in the end I believe it hurts trans people.

2 - Apologists overwhelmingly have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to any criticism of trans activism. I have been slurred and bullied on this forum countless times in the last few months. In general, it seems to me that - on any topic - when the apologist devolves into slurs and bullying, it's an indication that they have weak arguments.

3 - There is a sort of (I suspect unintentional), jiu-jitsu happening in these discussions. The apologists are attempting to hide the fact that THEY are the ones making extraordinary claims, and so they try to shift the burden of proof to the critics. But this is NOT how science works, it's not how debate works, it's not how useful conversation works. E.g., if you're apologizing for the claim "a trans woman is a woman", YOU are defending an extraordinary claim. You are on the hook to provide extraordinarily good arguments and evidence. If there are ANY flaws in your argument, your claim is invalid. So, for example, we see apologists pointing out that biological classification systems are not 100% perfect. That in fact there are rare cases in which individuals can be exceptions to classification systems. So what? No laws are perfect. Society does its best to create laws and policies that work most of the time for most of the people. Finding exceptions seldom means policies and laws are upended. It might mean that they get tweaked a bit.

So in general, it's not the critic's job to provide better solutions. When a scientist proposes a new idea, the role of the critic is to poke holes in the idea. That's all. The critic is not on the hook to come up with a better idea.

With that said, over the last couple of months I've made some suggestions as to better approaches, and not surprisingly I've been met with crickets. No response.

In another post I'll move on to your second set of responses.

But I'd like to reiterate that I'm finding this conversation quite refreshing. You're helping to restore my faith in humanity, thank you.

This is largely why I stopped engaging in these discussions. Some repeatedly make it clear they have no desire for factual discourse on the topic, which makes continuing to engage with them a waste of one's time unless you're the type to argue for the sake of arguing, which I am not nor do I have the time for if I wanted to. Nor am I here to convince people of reality nor care what random persons claim online. There's a huge difference between what they're insisting on online vs what's real.

 

[icehorse]

I don’t know if it’s really an either or scenario, like you’re hinting at. Nor do I feel one bit threatened as a born cis woman to acknowledge trans women as just “normal women.” But that’s just me.

All I see are people bringing up concerns, but that’s just fear at the “new normal” and honestly that happens with all our “updates” on human beings. If you follow?

For decades now feminists have been fighting for, and gaining, women's rights. Hooray!! I think a lot of younger women never experienced things that - for example - my wife went through in her career.

I think casting these things as "the new normal" minimizes their danger. Hard fought rights are being eroded. Referring to women as "womb owners" (for example), is a step backwards for women's rights. It dehumanizes women to use such terms. It's a step towards Handmaid's Tale sort of situations, argh!!!

So you have your personal opinions, and as a husband and father, I have mine. I have experienced loved ones suffering various forms of abuse at the hands of misogynists and I do not want women's rights to go backwards.

This seems like a common sense constraint: We want to find ways to support trans people, but we should constrain ourselves so that the solutions we consider do NOT impinge on the rights of women.

2- I’ve seen biker chicks. They’d be chased out of the women’s restrooms now, if I’m honest lol
But I do get the concern. Normalisation of masculine features in women’s spaces, right?
Here’s the thing though. That’s probably more connected to what’s known collectively as “non binary.”
See a trans woman would want to appear as socially feminine as humanly possible. A trans woman is going out of their way to adhere to the social standards that have been decreed as feminine, because that’s how they identify as. They would be beyond insecure and upset if they looked like a big burly biker guy.
So I wouldn’t really put that being allowed in women’s restrooms (big biker guys) on trans acceptance, if I’m honest. Since it’s quite literally antithetical to their overall goal (trans woman, specifically.)
Indeed by forcing trans individuals to go to the bathroom of their birth sex, this would actually force big burly bearded looking men to use the women’s, since that’s what a lot of passing trans males literally look like. Given that they are going out of their way to adhere to socially accepted masculine traits.
The ultimate irony, if you think about it. By not being accepting of trans individuals, you literally make those concerns come true by default.

Up until recently, I would agree that trans women - you'd think - would want to appear to be women. But recently that's been changing. So the question becomes, how to accommodate male-looking trans women without endangering women. First off, I'd say that if a male-looking trans women uses a public women's restroom they are being quite selfish and even narcissistic. They are putting all women at risk so... what? they can prove a point?

So I'm not suggesting "forcing" anything. I'm suggesting the application of common sense and that we ALL look out for each other.

Our locker rooms are usually at the gyms, sports fields or sometimes at what we call “lagoons” (public pools basically.)
Now the gym, that’s a specific crowd with their own ideas. I don’t know how socially acceptable it is among that crowd for unisex locker rooms. I think there are some gyms near me that have them, but I’m a lazy unhealthy slob so I don’t know lol
At my local lagoons, though? That seems less of a concern, overall. I don’t know, maybe it’s the overall chill atmosphere, or the fact that you’re already spending the day with half naked men and women in the pools anyway. (Plus we also have showers that you can use out in the open to “rinse yourself off.” Not even kidding.)
So unisex locker rooms are perhaps more seen on the “meh” side. Not sure though. That’s just the vibe I’ve always gotten.

We're talking about public policy here. I'm happy for you that you're chill, but I have quite recently spoken with women who are not chill on this topic. Their concerns seem realistic. So now what?

I'm strongly utilitarian leaning. I do not think we should make a tiny percentage of people a little more comfortable at the expensive of making a large group of people less safe.

But this overall probably runs a lot deeper than just her “being anti Trans” (allegedly) and somewhat ironically a lot more simple than authoritarianism.
Two words
Internet culture. Here’s another word. Misogyny.
I’ve seen it happen to many a female content creator, trans, cis, in between, doesn’t matter. The internet is a depraved place and honestly the comments that got them attacked ranges from the absolute benign to the bizarre.

But remember the context of this thread, it's about TERFs. So who are the people slinging around this term? Misogynists? I guess that's possible, but it seems unlikely and very false flag / conspiracy theory-ish, no?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Upon thinking about it more, I agree that there might be better ways for some, not all, to respond to some of these trans discussions and debates than they already are. Honestly, I find it a complicated thing to debate and discuss myself, because I see the "ship as already sailed" when it comes to these issues. Even if we debate and come up with great solutions that are seen as marvelous in the eyes of both sides, it's like things have mostly already ran their course. People have already transitioned. And the science has already been determined. Even if we all agree on everything on RF, then there'd still be convincing the general public of something, and it'd be hard to implement great alternative ways when trans people have already followed a mode of care, transitioned, etc.

 

[icehorse]

Upon thinking about it more, I agree that there might be better ways for some, not all, to respond to some of these trans discussions and debates than they already are. Honestly, I find it a complicated thing to debate and discuss myself, because I see the "ship as already sailed" when it comes to these issues. Even if we debate and come up with great solutions that are seen as marvelous in the eyes of both sides, it's like things have mostly already ran their course. People have already transitioned. And the science has already been determined. Even if we all agree on everything on RF, then there'd still be convincing the general public of something, and it'd be hard to implement great alternative ways when trans people have already followed a mode of care, transitioned, etc.

Can you clarify a bit on which ships and sailed, and what science is settled, and who has already transitioned?

From my perspective these questions are still all unsettled?